I used to view myself as a fiscal
conservative, meaning I wanted the government to live within its budget and not
borrow money beyond its ability to pay back without putting existing programs
at risk. I also considered myself fairly
liberal (or perhaps libertarian) in my view of the moral direction of
society. I didn’t think the government
should be intruding into the sexual preferences of the average citizen, and
there were good and just reasons for many of the social welfare programs,
although they came at a cost, both in terms of total economics and
social/family structure. Essentially, I
viewed my position as fairly mainstream middle-American. If the government left me alone I would pay
my taxes, live my life, and let others live theirs. I would usually vote Republican in the
Presidential races based their claims of fiscal responsibility, but not
always. On the local level up to Senator
I often saw the Democratic candidate as a preferred option.
In the 2016 election I was faced
with a difficult choice. The two
“mainstream” candidates were both unattractive to me. One for his crass and demeaning manner, the
other for her obvious flaws with regard to the telling the truth, her repeated
hypocrisies, involvement in government subterfuge, abuse of her offices, and
obvious sense of personal entitlement to the office she sought. The third-party candidates were remarkable in
their complete lack of vision for the nation.
As a result, I cast my first ever vote for “none of the above.”
On November 6, 2016 my political
evolution began. As I watched the
political pundits, media, and Democratic party supporters come unhinged at the
election of Donald Trump, I saw, for perhaps the first time, how truly unhinged
the party and its activists had become.
I had disliked but accepted, for the eight years preceding the election,
the rhetoric it had used to label the opposition as racist anytime someone was
bold enough to criticize the President, the President and his party’s refusal
to work in a bi-partisan manner, his placing of blame for all things on the
GOP, and the fact he chose to publicly engage in the debate over local issues
siding always with the minority versus the government, but figured his flaws
were more ones of experience and a lack of real leadership rather than an
all-out attack on the institution of our Republic. I figured when the election was settled we
would shift slightly and a continuation of the illusion of normalcy by the
political elitists I had been lured into accepting would continue. That all changed on the day after the
election and has only continued to grow with each succeeding choice by the
Democrats. Their position is summed up
pretty accurately with Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most recent position, saying
the DNC cannot be civil until they are once again in power and can dictate the
political debate. If anyone truly
believes that is the case then they are hopelessly uninformed. If you think bullies change their approach
when they are put in charge let’s look back on how the Congress last worked
when the DNC controlled both the House and Senate. Were they more civil then, or did the press
just not highlight their partisanship?
I believe it was simply a matter
of the popular media elites being totally onboard with the agenda being pushed
by the DNC. The elites, regardless of
where they were, had all agreed to a single world view and it was nothing the
hicks of middle American should have a say in.
I have no idea how our founders
could have envisioned the polarization of a society as large as ours, but when
they designed the relationships between the several states and our federal
government, and then placed into the constitution the checks and balances they
did it was absolutely brilliant. Now we
see the true colors of the Democratic party where increasingly louder voices
are calling for the abandonment of the Constitution and the checks to power it
provides. Is the document out of date,
or is it just it impedes their desire for unchecked power?
In about three weeks we will
return to the polls to choose a new House of Representatives and 1/3 of the
Senate. Historically, the people have
used these Presidential mid-term elections as a way to alter the course of what
the federal government is doing. If the
economy is good and the majority is optimistic we see only minor change. On the other hand, if things are not good the
voters have historically altered the balance of power in the house and shifted
the balance in the Senate.
That lesson is not lost on either
party, and the Democrats have been geared up to show how bad life is under
President Trump, unfortunately for them the economic picture seems far better
today than at any time during the Obama administration. Then, of course, we have the pure political
battles like the recent confirmation hearings for Justice Kavanaugh where the
minority party pulled out every single thing they could think of to derail the
confirmation. In the process I believe
they showed themselves to be unfit for office, but that is just my
opinion. We will see if others think as
I do soon enough.
Perhaps the DNC is playing to what
they perceive as their next generation political core, but until they can come
up with another candidate like Barrack Obama who will say the right things, even if
he doesn’t believe them, they will have little chance to convince middle
America they should be in charge. I
think the DNC has two challenges ahead of themselves. First, find a candidate that is not 70+ years
old who can convince the big money donors they can bet on him/her. Second, either find a way to get more millennials
to vote as they are told or recognize their ranting about doing away with the
Constitution is a losing proposition for people who do actually vote.
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment